JUDGMENT Kalpesh Satyendra Jhaveri, J. - Defect(s) in appeals wherever they are, are waived. 2. Delay in filing the appeal (48/2018) is condoned. The applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. 3. In these appeals common question of law and facts are involved, hence, they are decided by this common judgment. 4. By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has remitted back the matters. 5. Counsel for the appellant has framed following questions of law :- In D.B. Customs Appeal 43/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 44/2018, both appeals questions are same : 1. Whether Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), who is jurisdictional Commissioner also for whole State of Rajasthan, is proper officer in view of Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962 for assessment under Section 17 and reassessment/ recovery of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962? 2. Whether the case of M/s. Mangali Impex v. CCE 2016 (335) E.L.T. 605 is applicable in the present case? In D.B. Customs Appeal 22/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 23/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 24/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 25/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 26/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 27/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 29/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 28/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 31/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 34/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 33/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 32/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 30/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 37/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 36/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 39/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 40/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 41/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 38/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 42/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 3/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 4/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 5/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 6/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 7/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 8/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 11/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 12/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 13/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 15/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 16/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 18/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 19/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 20/2018, in D.B. Customs Appeal 21/2018, all appeals questions are same : 1. Whether Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), who is jurisdictional Commissioner also for whole State of Rajasthan, is proper officer in view of Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962 for assessment under Section 18 and re-assessment/recovery of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962? 2. Whether the case of M/s. Mangali Impex v. CCE is applicable in the present case? In D.B. Customs Appeal No. 48/2018 1. Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("CESTAT') was justified and correct in law in passing an order of remand to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, after passing the stay order wherein operation of the order passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal preferred against the decision of Delhi High Court in Mangli Impex Limited v. Union of India - 2016 (335) E.L.T. 605 (Del.)? 2. That other questions will urged during the time of argument. 6. Counsel for the appellant contended that the decision in the case of Mangli Impex Ltd. v. Union of India; 2016 (335) E.L.T. 605 (Del.) ought not to have been relied upon by the Tribunal inasmuchas the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 20453/2016 vide order dated 1st August, 2016 [2016 (339) E.L.T. A49 (S.C.)] has stayed the operation of said order. 7. He has also relied upon the decision of Division Bench of Delhi High Court in case of Vipul Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors., CUSAA No. 57/2017 decided on 20th November, 2017 [2018 (359) E.L.T. 646 (Del.)]. 8. In that view of the matter, he contended that the view taken by the Tribunal is required to be reversed and the matters to be admitted on the substantial questions of law framed above. 9. Counsel for the respondent has strongly relied upon the decision of 4th July, 2018, wherein while considering the identical issue, the Karnataka High Court in case of Deepak M. Ganeyan v. The Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax, Bangalore has observed as under :- "6. The Hon'ble High Courts of Mumbai, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, however took a different view of the matter as noted by the Learned Tribunal. The relevant portion of the observations of the Learned Tribunal are quoted before for ready reference : "3. The Hon'ble High Courts of Mumbai, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, however took a different view of the matter as noted by the Learned Tribunal. The relevant portion of the observations of the Learned Tribunal are quoted before for ready reference : "3. From the record, it appears that a preliminary issue which emerges in the present appeal is regarding the jurisdiction of the DRI officers to issue show cause notice under the Customs Act. The Apex Court in its decision in the case of CC v. Sayed Ali [ 2011 (265) E.L.T. 17 (SC)] held that DRI officers were not proper officers in terms of Section 2(34) of the Customs, Act, 1962. 4. It is also seen that after the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above-mentioned case, the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 were amended with effect from 8-4-2011 vide Finance Act, 2011. 5. It is also noticed that in order to overcome the situation created by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sayed Ali (supra), Notification No. 44/2011-Cus (NT) , dated 6-7-2011 was issued by the C.B.E. & C., assigning the functions of the proper officer to various officers (including Additional Director General, DRI) mentioned in the notification for the purposes of Section 28 of the Act. Thus w.e.f. 6-7-2011, the Additional Director General, DRI was prospectively appointed as "proper officer' for the purpose of Section 28 of the Customs Act. Hence from 6-7-2011, ADG-DRI has been empowered to issue demand notice under Section 28. 6. Subsequently, sub-section (11) was inserted under Section 28 of the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 dated 16-9-2011, assigning the functions of proper officers to various DRI officers with retrospective effect. 7. Later on, i.e. for the period subsequent to the amendment, the issue of DRI officers having the proper jurisdiction to issue the SCN came up before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex v. UOI [2016 (335) E.L.T. 605 (Del.)] , inter alia, laying down that even a new inserted Section 28(11) does not empower either the officers of DRI or the DGCEI to adjudicate the SCN issued by them for the period prior to 8-4-2011. Thus it is seen that the said order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Thus it is seen that the said order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, the said decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court stand stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 2016 (339) E.L.T. A49 (S.C.). 8. However, it is further noticed that the said issue was also the subject matter of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Sunil Gupta v. UOI [ 2015 (315) E.L.T. 167 (Bom.)] as also of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the case of Vuppalamritha Magnetic Components Ltd. v. DRI (Zonal Unit), Chennai [2017 (345) E.L.T. 161 (AP)] taking a view contrary to the one taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 9. The above developments show that there are two views holding the field and the matter now stand before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In an earlier case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandna Impex v. CC, Delhi [2012 (26) S.T.R. 257 (S.C.)] had remanded the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to examine the issue of jurisdiction afresh in the light of decision in Sayed Ali (supra). As already observed the entire issue is once again before the Hon'ble Apex Court, in view of the contrary decision of various High Courts. In these circumstances, I deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, after the availability of Supreme Court's decision in the case of Mangali Impex (supra) and then decide the merits of the case." Thus, with the aforesaid observations, the Learned Tribunal has remanded back the case to the original Adjudicating Authority to first decide the question on jurisdiction. However, the said question can be decided by the Learned Adjudicating Authority only after the Hon'ble Supreme Court decides the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. (supra) arising from the judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in 2016 (339) E.L.T. A49 (S.C.). The matter is thus, at this stage, pending before the said Adjudicating Authority in which even the question of jurisdiction of the DRI officers or the original Adjudicating Authority is yet to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The matter is, thus still pending before the original Adjudicating Authority only. 7. The matter is thus, at this stage, pending before the said Adjudicating Authority in which even the question of jurisdiction of the DRI officers or the original Adjudicating Authority is yet to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The matter is, thus still pending before the original Adjudicating Authority only. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, urged before us that in these circumstances, the Learned CESTAT should not have and could not have remanded the case back to the Adjudicating Authority, who, ultimately may not have the jurisdiction to decide these proceedings at all and it would depend upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, a substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. 8. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present case requiring our further consideration. The question of jurisdiction is obviously pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is bound to be final and binding on all the Authorities and the Tribunal below. Therefore, since the present nature of the case as to which authority will have jurisdiction to decide the matter of the appellant and other persons mentioned in the show cause notice, will depend upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this matter need not be kept pending here on our Board and in our considered view no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The proceedings before the concerned Authority who will be the "proper authority' held so, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court will get seized of the matter and the contentions now raised before us can be raised before the said Authority." 10. We have heard Counsel for both the sides. 11. In our considered opinion, since the issue is pending before the Supreme Court against both the judgments of Bombay High Court as well as Delhi High Court and the view taken by the another Division Bench, the decision of the Tribunal is proper inasmuch as merely because the judgment is stayed, the other Division Bench cannot take a contrary view. 12. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to follow the practice adopted by the Karnataka High Court in the aforesaid decision. 13. 12. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to follow the practice adopted by the Karnataka High Court in the aforesaid decision. 13. In view of the above, no substantial questions of law arise. Hence, the appeals stand dismissed. 14. All stay applications stand disposed of.